So that's the answer, republicans come out for amnesty, and then Hispanics will vote for them. That's what's required for the Hispanic vote? It's not that Hispanics might demand and expect wealth transfers, they just want amnesty and everything else is good?

Why do I think it's somehow more than that and that reducing this community to one issue is wrong, if not condescending?

Hispos are destined to take power in the US - the numbers .... Free immo accelerates the inevitable.
.
The only way for Reps get on the winning side of this is to offer the Party to Hispos, as their vehicle of convenience.
.
Once in power, Hispos will have whatever they want.

However bad Whites have managed things, they've done better than the Latino administrations in the places Latinos are running away from, no? Why would they want to come to a White-dominated place if that weren't the case?
.
Is there any reason to believe a Latio regime in the US will be any less awful than a Latino regime anywhere in Latino-Land?

There's also a pretty tough meritocratic barrier to immigration. Just look at Indians for example. The average salary in India is about US$1k. The average for Indian Americans is about $70k USD, which is higher than that of white Americans. I would therefore say that Indian Americans are a lot better and more capable bunch than the masses in India, which implies that they'll probably be able to run a better government than the masses in India.

You're willing to make a pretty big and irreversible bet on a pretty damn thin 'maybe', seems to this White Boy.
.
Who cares about Hindus - they can't swim a stream and be in the good ol' USA like Latinos can, right? Clue you in on something - Lations as a group are more anti-Immo (for everyone but themselves) than Whites are. Indians shouldn't expect a whole lot of welcome from them when they take over.

I used Indians as an example because I happened to remember specific stats for Indians off the top of my head. Latinos, at least the legal immigrants, show similar patterns compared to Latinos in Latin America. And Obama is much better than the warlords in Africa, etc.

Not an apt comparison. Latino immigration is the actual expansion of Latin America into adjoining, and formerly held, territory. The entire society and culture is organically grafted onto and into the subsumed territory - just look as SoCal and SoTex and other border states. Nothing like this is possible with Africa.
.
Latinos don't stop being Latinos when they cross the river.

Actually, all the evidence is that, when people immigrate, the adopt the culture of their new surroundings within a generation. (To the extent that they didn't already embrace it. Which is, typically, part of the reason that they choose come.)

That certainly has historically been the experience with our first couple of centuries of immigrants. In every case, those already here worried that the new immigrants would (negatively) change the existing culture. And yet that isn't what happened. Over and over.

Cross-ocean immigration in the age of steamships involved people essentially severing forever their contact with their homelands and cultures. Immigration from adjoining lands can, and does in the present case, represent the cultural and social expansion of one society that subsumes the territory of another - just as Han are doing in Tibet right now.
.
IMO incorrect to conclusively presume that the experience of European immigration a Century ago is a dead-certain indicator of the experience to come.

The vast majority of non-European and non-former-slave immigrants came to the US starting from the 1980s, in an era of planes and telephone rather than steam ships. That didn't stop immigrants and their children founding 40% of Fortune 500 companies, compared to their demographic impact of only 22% of the population.

Your point about previous immigrants being more cut off from the places they left is fair enough. But I look at the immigrant families that I know where the parents came here in the last 3-4 decades and see the same thing as previous waves of immigrants: the kids (now adults) don't differ markedly in their values from the Americans around them, including those whose families have been here for generations. (Except, I suppose, for being a bit sensitive when someone says "[group X, i.e. them] are not real Americans.") Plus, we see a fair, and growing, amount of intermarriage between groups -- which further integrates the next generation into the overall culture.

What the Han are doing in Tibet is working just as you say. But the Chinese tradition is to move in and take over demographically. Where the American tradition is to arrive and be absorbed. Different cultural traditions; different results.

Quite true. But if you do the same thing and expect different results, you need some reason why you think that "this time is different." Otherwise you fall into "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and esxpecting different results."

Latino immigration is the actual expansion of Latin America into adjoining, and formerly held, territory. The entire society and culture is organically grafted onto and into the subsumed territory
-
Since I'm Irish American, I'm glad to learn I've been going to mass regularly (whew), but sad to learn that I've also probably died of the famine :(

Hey Republicans,
Want to crush those socialist Dems who do not respect personal freedom in 2016? Then support Rubio's immigration reforms.
Latino Americans are natural Republicans because they are on average more socially conservative than white voters. Asian and Jewish Americans, who also mostly voted for Obama in 2012, are also natural Republicans because they tend to favor smaller government.
It was sad to watch the Republicans squander so much fundamental demographic strength in 2012 because the Party decided to let radical clowns take over the primary process. It's time to fix that mistake.

Might I suggest that it is about more than moving the percentage of Hispanic Republicans from 70% to 60% of total Hispanics voters. It is about the Republican party being seen to be reaching out to voters who are not old, white, men putting off any who are young, female and brown.

Immigration is a good place to start on such an effort as compromise on this issue does not engage the religious or anti-tax wings of the party. Moderation on social issues or promotion of welfare friendly economic conservatism would be vociferously opposed by one or more of these factions.

Native-born children of immigrants *should* favor smaller government because they tend to be, according to US Census income stats, on average more hard working than children born to non-immigrant families.
The GOP should offer a way to express social conservatism without letting the radical fringe take over the party rhetoric and thus sounding crazy. There seems to be lots of, or even a majority of, "independent" American voters who are looking for a party to take this middle route.

A party which went for fiscal conservatism and small government, but was socially more libertarian, would not only pull in lots more independents, it could pull in a lot of voters who are currently Democrats simply because they couldn't take the crazies, but want to have a meaningful vote in parimaries.

Naturalizing 12-million unauthorized immigrants through the IRS sounds patriotic! Pay your back taxes and you too can become a U.S. Citizen. You'll be generating revenue for your country while increasing its tax base!

This is a terrible idea. We tried Amnesty for the 3 million illegal aliens in 1986 and now we have 12 million illegal aliens living in the US and driving down wages and costing US taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

Well, even if it doesn't help Republicans, it has to be a plus for them if they stop hurting themselves on this issue. Granted, they would no doubt prefer to get some noticible increase in votes from it. But to just stop losing ever more votes over it is not to be dismissed by a party that has already got demographic problems galore.

Immigration reform is only one of many issues that Latino voters care about, and from what I gather the general consensus is that Reagan's reforms didn't make a large enough impact to stem Latino voters slide to the Dems. But stopping most of this silly talk about legitimate rape, global warming doesn't exist, self deportation, etc. will help Republicans.
Nominating or showcasing Rubio probably will also help win Latino votes for the GOP. Just look at how many more black voters turned out for Obama as compared to previous Democratic candidates.

It could end up hurting the GOP electorally for a generation or more. Democrats didn't really recover after the Civil War until FDR. Then the Republicans didn't really recover until Reagan. Then the Democrats didn't really recover again until Obama.

Republicans can give up on the immigrant vote specifically and try to make inroads elsewhere. E.g., appeal to more economic moderates. Imagine a GOP that opposes amnesty but stops emphasizing social issues and promotes a welfare-friendly economic conservatism.

I don't have to imagine that GOP; I can remember it. But it's gone, and I don't actually see a possibility of it returning for a generation.

Not that I won't keep trying to make it happen, but the odds are enormously high against it happening. The base today cares far more about social issues (including keeping "those people" out) than it does about nominating candidates who can win elections.

Well I have no idea why the GOP decided to showcase a bunch of clowns, and not just at the presidential level, for the 2012 primaries/elections.
But Chris Christie, Tim Pawlenty, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and even Paul Ryan would have sounded far less crazy and alienated far fewer independent voters than Romney/Santorum/Gingrich/Bachmann/Cain/Perry/clown/etc.

Black people voted in huge percentages for Kerry, Clinton, et al, but their turnout rate was much higher for Obama than for the others. Rubio would certainly, in addition to winning Latino percentages for the GOP, galvanize Latinos to show up at the voting booth.

I would say that Christie, et al, decided not to run because they understood that winning in the primaries would require sounding just that crazy. Romney was willing to pay that price for the nomination; they were not.

And the only way that the GOP gets a more electable candidate out of the primaries next time is if those of us who vote in the GOP's primaries collectively decide that we care more about electability than about ideological purity. It's a matter of accepting that faith will not move that particular mountain, no matter how much the base wishes it would. And unfortunately I just don't see that happening any time soon.

The GOP elites, who through the RNC mostly control the primary process, can alter it so that more moderate and sane voices prevail. They can moderate what comes out of conservative think tanks, television advertisements, Super PACs, schedule more moderate debate topics, and allow independents or even Democrats to vote in the Republican primary, etc.
I think the RNC got caught up with the Tea Party movement in 2010 and believed that it would carry them to victory in 2012. That strategy didn't work so it's time to change strategies.

The part of the "GOP elite" which controls those things (i.e. the RNC) has been largely taken over by people who are part of the base on the those matters. Which is to say, the strain of thought which cares more about ideology than electability. (Or, perhaps, haven't yet accepted that strict adherence to their ideology is not a majority enthusiasm.) We have reached the point where it is all too easy to get the vast majority of your on-going impression of "what people think" from people who agree with you.

The only reality check that can't be easily avoided is a general election. Those only come around every couple of years. Which means that you have to lose several in a row, over the course of a decade, before "it was just an anomaly" ceases to be a convincing reaction.

Are we there yet? Well, we are seeing comments from some elected politicians to that effect. They have, after all, a personal reason to look clearly at what will help them keep their jobs -- which is a start. But I doubt that they will convince enough people (at the RNC or the state party level) to get the rules changed before the next Presidential primaries.

My best guess is that Rubio would excite Hispanic immigrants but not the much larger community of native-born Hispanics who are much more liberal, with the exception of Florida's Cubans. He'd still get a larger share than Republicans past but maybe not even a majority. It's possible that Rubio would do better during his reelection as Bush II did, once Hispanics realize he's not so bad after all.

Imagine a GOP that opposes amnesty but stops emphasizing social issues and promotes a welfare-friendly economic conservatism.
-
I vote Republican because I don't like taxes. I can't think of any other good reason for the republican party. And opposing amnesty annoys people like me, not just immigrants. As for the economic moderate bit, you can't just be economically "moderate", you also have to pay for it. That's what's really unpopular.

The best answer would be for Immigration Reform to focus on Enforcement. Make E-Verify both Mandatory and Retro-active and employers will need to check all their current employees. Millions of jobs will be created as the illegal aliens are fired and American Citizens are hired.

So is hiring illegal immigrants, and yet you seem to have no interest in imprisoning the wealthy individuals who knowingly and willfully engage in abusive and illegal labor practices by hiring illegal aliens at wages which suppress those for poor Americans.

Even by your own logic, which I disagree with, your solution is one-sided and blatantly ignores the most culpable parties. Try again with an internally consistent message.

I'd love to hire a bunch of them and wish it were legal. How about instead of persecuting people for making the same choices every last one of us makes, you stop persecuting anyone. Some people have work that needs doing and don't want to pay any more than necessary to have it done and other people want to do that work at the available wage. Why does anyone in this scenario need prison?

I've been a puppet, a pauper, a pirate, a poet, a pawn and a king.
I've been up and down and over and out and I know one thing.
Each time I find myself flat on my face.
I pick myself up and get back in the race.
.
"That's Life" - The Chairman of the Board
.
.
I've had to change and adapt so many times, my friends call me
"Odo".http://www.startrek.com/uploads/assets/db_articles/55d738aac90a80914bb54...
.
NPWFTL
Regards

Damn straight! How does anyone make the argument that others should be persecuted so that they can be privileged despite their incompetence. The problem with this country is that everyone seems to think they're entitled to more of an opportunity than others.

You might want to correct that. There's still lots of illegal immigration. NET migration is near zero but that's not the same thing. And that includes Obama's increased deportations so there's still a net voluntary migration into the US.

Hear hear. I never assume that all the incentives and all the reason and all the emotion lining up for an outcome will be enough to overpower the congressional tendency to do wrong and fail to do right. But I'm not less than 10% less pessimistic than I was in '06 and that's got to be a good sign.

But I'm not less than 10% less pessimistic than I was in '06 and that's got to be a good sign.
-
Wait, do you mean that if you were 100 percent pessimistic in '06 you are 10 percent optimistic now, or do you just mean that your optimism increased by 10 percent?